Re: [CfC] Erratum for ActivityPub on the definition of `inbox` the property

Great question.

The original text is:

    /A reference/to an [ActivityStreams] OrderedCollection comprised of
    _all_ the messages received by the actor; see 5.2 Inbox.

Note the underlined all. What we're changing here is "/A reference/to an 
[ActivityStreams] OrderedCollection"
to "An OrderedCollection", to be more parallel with the outbox property.

I do see your point; some implementations don't even make this 
collection readable, so even though POSTing to the collection is adding 
an activity to it (POST-to-create pattern), it doesn't "stay there".

It's a little orthogonal to this erratum, though. Would you mind adding 
a new issue to the repo?

Evan

On 2025-05-28 2:21 a.m., Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> pá 23. 5. 2025 v 18:33 odesílatel Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name> 
> napsal:
>
>     Issue #289 of the ActivityPub GitHub repository notes the inexact
>     and asymmetrical language used for defining the `inbox` and
>     `outbox` collections:
>
>     https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/289
>
>     To resolve this, there is a proposed erratum for Section 4.1 to
>     bring the definition of the `inbox` property closer to that of the
>     `outbox` property:
>
>       * In section 4.1 "Actor objects", the definition of "inbox"
>         should read, "An OrderedCollection comprised of all the
>         messages received by the actor; see 5.2 Inbox."
>
>     We usually handle approval of errata in our synchronous meetings,
>     which takes a lot of time and focus away from other topics that
>     require more immediate presence and conversation. In speaking with
>     the chairs and others in the issue triage meeting, we think that
>     handling this task through the CFC decision-making process will be
>     more efficient.
>
>     So, I am seeking consensus to add this erratum to our errata page
>     for ActivityPub. Please reply either to the GitHub issue or here
>     on the mailing within 14 days of this message.
>
>
> Thanks Evan, small point to consider: does “all” messages mean every 
> received message should be archived in the inbox? I’m not sure all 
> implementations do that.
>
>     Evan
>
>